ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT

Date: January 2022

This is to acknowledge that I received from Pedro Penduko married, both of

legal age, and residents of Maranas, Kumia City, the total amount of (Php 350,000.00)
as full payment of a real property/land with a total Lot Area of One hundred square
meters (100 sq. meters) located at Mari-mari, corner street, Pao-pao City, owned by the
vendor herein below indicated.

Received by:   ___________________________

____________________________

Witnesses:

Juan dela Cruz Juana dela Cruz

Q1. PROBLEM. On May 1, 2008, Rosie, the wife of petitioner Treyes, passed away.
Rosie, who did not bear any children with petitioner Treyes, died without any will. Rosie
also left behind seven (7) siblings, i.e., the private respondents Antonio, Emilio, Heddy,
Rene, Celeste, Judy, and Yvonne. At the time of her death, Rosie left behind 14 real
estate properties, situated in various locations in the Philippines, which she owned
together with petitioner Treyes as their conjugal properties (subject properties).
Subsequently, petitioner Treyes executed two Affidavits of Self- Adjudication dated
September 2, 200812 and May 19, 2011. In these two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication,
petitioner Treyes transferred the estate of Rosie unto himself, claiming that he was the
sole heir of his deceased spouse, Rosie. New titles had been issued in the name of
petitioner Treyes on the basis of the two Affidavits of SelfAdjudication. Hence, the
private respondents filed before the RTC a Complaint for annulment of the Affidavits of
Self-Adjudication, cancellation of TCTs, reconveyance of ownership and possession,
partition, and damages against petitioner Treyes, alleging that petitioner Treyes
fraudulently caused the transfer of the subject properties to himself by executing the
two Affidavits of Self-Adjudication and refused to reconvey the shares of the private
respondents who, being the brothers and sisters of Rosie, are legal heirs of the
deceased. In his Motion to Dismiss, petitioner Treyes averred that the RTC should
dismiss the complaint because it has no jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide the subject
of the private respondents’ Complaint since the determination of the status of the legal
heirs in a separate special proceeding is a prerequisite to an ordinary suit for recovery
of ownership and possession of property instituted by the legal heirs. How will you
resolve the motion to dismiss? ANS. The motion to dismiss must be denied. Unless
there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent's estate or for
the determination of heirship, the compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an
ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of a deed or instrument, and for recovery of
property, or any other action in the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by
virtue of succession, without the necessity of a prior and separate judicial declaration of
their status as such. The heirs' rights become vested without need for them to be
declared "heirs". Before the property is partitioned, the heirs are co-owners of the
property. No judicial declaration of heirship is necessary in order that an heir may
assert his or her right to the property of the deceased. The ruling of the trial court shall
only be in relation to the cause of action of the ordinary civil action, i.e., the nullification
of a deed or instrument, and recovery or reconveyance of property, which ruling is
binding only between and among the parties. (DR. NIXON L. TREYES vs. ANTONIO L.
LARLAR, et. al., G.R. No. 232579, Sept. 08, 2020, EN BANC, Caguioa, J.)